P Vieille1, E Mousty2, V Letouzey2, P Mares2, R de Tayrac2. 1. Service de gynécologie obstétrique, CHU Carémeau, 30029 Nîmes, France. Electronic address: pvieille@hotmail.com. 2. Service de gynécologie obstétrique, CHU Carémeau, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the gynecology obstetric residents training on a birth simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective monocentric study, which had included residents at the beginning of their formation and performed on SIMone™, 3B SCIENTIFIC(®) birth simulator. It had included four sessions (supervised by two seniors registrar): two on instrumental extraction (vacuum and forceps) and two on labor monitoring. The two sessions were performed at one month. A theoretical formation was accomplished after the first assessment. Three assessments were performed based on two score scales (extraction and labor monitoring). A free training was allowed at each extraction session. RESULTS: Twelve interns were included in this study. There was a significant scores improvement between first and third session for instrumental extraction (2.4 points on 11 [±1.8] vs. 8 [±0.9]; [P<0.05]) and for labor monitoring (5.2 [±1.4] points on 9 vs. 6.6 [±1.3]; [P<0.05]). Interns considered this training improved their theoretical and practical knowledge for respectively 11 and 12 interns on 12. For 9 interns, a most important debriefing with teachers was desirable. CONCLUSION: Training on birth simulator allows an improvement of knowledge and skill of gynecology obstetric interns. A structured debriefing should be instituted after the sessions.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the gynecology obstetric residents training on a birth simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective monocentric study, which had included residents at the beginning of their formation and performed on SIMone™, 3B SCIENTIFIC(®) birth simulator. It had included four sessions (supervised by two seniors registrar): two on instrumental extraction (vacuum and forceps) and two on labor monitoring. The two sessions were performed at one month. A theoretical formation was accomplished after the first assessment. Three assessments were performed based on two score scales (extraction and labor monitoring). A free training was allowed at each extraction session. RESULTS: Twelve interns were included in this study. There was a significant scores improvement between first and third session for instrumental extraction (2.4 points on 11 [±1.8] vs. 8 [±0.9]; [P<0.05]) and for labor monitoring (5.2 [±1.4] points on 9 vs. 6.6 [±1.3]; [P<0.05]). Interns considered this training improved their theoretical and practical knowledge for respectively 11 and 12 interns on 12. For 9 interns, a most important debriefing with teachers was desirable. CONCLUSION: Training on birth simulator allows an improvement of knowledge and skill of gynecology obstetric interns. A structured debriefing should be instituted after the sessions.